CS5.5 Rendering Slightly Wider The Output File

[OneStarMotel]

I shot some footage on an iPhone. Edited it in Premiere. I have the source file set at 720 x 480, the output at 720 x 480. It looks fine in Premiere but when it renders it's making the output slightly wider than 720 so the "wings" are clipped from either side, like it's slighty magnified. I checked and unchecked the "match sequence settings" box, nothing changed. What am I doing wrong?

[aedipuss]

the source file probably isn't 720x480. try using mediainfo on it to get it's true size.

[OneStarMotel]

That answer literally makes no sense. The video looks fine in premiere. I also put a 720 x 480 overlay from Photoshop on one of the layers. If the source file was a different size it would appear "zoomed" in the program window. Also, can you explain how I am supposed to run an unrendered timeline through a media sniffer? lol

[Cornucopia]

I'm pretty sure the "it" that aedipuss was talking about was referring to the SOURCE file(s). Run them through MediaInfo. Since MI doesn't read picture formats, you'll have to use Photoshop or some other app to check them...

Next, make sure you are "interpreting" the AR of the source files correctly. 720x480 should have a 4:3 or 16:9 DAR (with a 10:11 or 40:33 PAR, respectively).

Then check to make sure your Output AR settings match your sequence/timeline AR settings.

One of those 3 is probably where things are going wrong.

Scott

[OneStarMotel]

That still doesn't make sense. The source file fits in the program monitor, there is a correctly sized overlay, when I upload the video to YouTube it looks fine with small black bars at the top and bottom. When I play it back in quicktime it's cropped. I don't know how to put a video file into Photoshop to determine the size but no matter what if the source file looks fine in the program monitor it should not output something that looks magnified. The settings match.

[aedipuss]

can't you follow instructions at all? can't help you if you know it all already.

[OneStarMotel]

"Can't you follow instructions at all?" Actually, I make TV for living. I'm known for being able to follow instructions and for producing high quality broadcast television. I'm sorry if I am experienced enough to know you are just making shit up off the top of your head without really knowing what you are talking about. Also, your response is really manipulative of the facts. I never claimed to "know it all" but now that you have mentioned it I know quite a bit more than most people. 3 years of editing and delivering reality TV and this is the first time I have ever had to ask a question on a forum. It's very telling for the validity of your argument that the YouTube version of the video looks just fine. If you were even remotely correct in the smallest way the video on YouTube would be cropped too. Don't say you can't help me because I "know it all" why don't you just say you can't help because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, period. Here is my citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qrKggAGpSk Same video file. It just plays incorrectly in Quicktime. It never had anything to do with the size of the source file. I'm sorry.

The question has been modified. Why does it only look this way when it's played in a Quicktime enviornment. If you are aedipuss please don't answer. You are wasting server space.

[Ethlred]

The instructions they are pointing out that you are not following.

Run them through MediaInfo.

Download and install MediaInfo. Use it to check the SOURCE file and then post the results. Saying that doesn't make sense is not sign the instructions are irrelevant to your question. It is a sign that YOU didn't understand what they are asking.

YOU are not giving anyone here the information needed to help you. You need help and don't know everything or you would not be asking. WE or rather they NEED you to run MediaInfo so THEY can help.

You did ask for help. No one can help with just the information provided.

If that does not make sense then you could just follow it by rote and them maybe someone will be able to help you.

If you are aedipuss please don't answer. You are wasting server space.

That was the waste of server space. He may be the one person that can help IF you just follow the simple instruction to install and run MedioInfo on the source file. It would help if you ran it on both the source and the final file.

Edited because I missed that last line in the OPs silly and counterproductive post.


Ethelred

[OneStarMotel]

Really, is this forum populated by people who can't read... How is that even possible? I just said very specifically that when I put the file on YouTube it worked fine. I know you think my counter post is silly but your response is even more retarded than his. Especially since I explained in THE POST RIGHT ABOVE YOURS that the video looks fine on YouTube and even gave you a source. Typical forum trolls. THE PROBLEM IS FIXED. I'm sorry you have lowered cognitive abilities. That must suck for you.

The proof that aedipuss was wrong is in the above link. Look at it. You can clearly see the file - the same file - is working just fine on YouTube. I don't expect a real answer either. It would be too much for an internet troll to admit when he was dead wrong.

[Ethlred]

Yes it is too much for an internet troll to admit he is wrong.

So did you even try to download MediaInfo?

I'm sorry you have lowered cognitive abilities. That must suck for you.

Indeed it must that you could not even do a simple install of MediaInfo.

Well since you know everything I guess you will be leaving. Thank you for the insults. I am sure they will do you some good somewhere.

Ethelred

[OneStarMotel]

No I'll stay long enough to let you be you... mediainfo huh? What reason would I need that exactly, my video looks fine...

[Ethlred]

You asked for help. If you didn't need it why did you bother asking?

Is this getting through at all?

It is a useful tool in any case.

In case you have not figured it out others decided you aren't worth the effort. I figure learning to be a decent person might help the people around you even if it doesn't help me.

After all. I am not laboring under the delusion that I know everything.

Ethelred

[OneStarMotel]

I asked for an answer to my question. I was hoping that someone who actually knew what the issue was would answer but as with all forums only the troll showed up. Instead I get an answer from someone who is possibly selling a product called mediainfo This whole thread is two people trying to get me to use a product that I don't want and never needed. Both of you are manipulative of the facts. As for the others. I'm pretty sure they're read the thread, have seen that I resolved the issue but got stuck talking to a retard.

[Ethlred]

Instead I get an answer from someone who is possibly selling a product called mediainfo

It is rather hard to sell a free product.

This whole thread is two people trying to get me to use a product that I don't want and never needed.

No. They were suggesting that you use a tool that is pretty standard for checking what exactly is in the video container.

Both of you are manipulative of the facts.

You have some real issues that are all your own.

I'm pretty sure they're read the thread, have seen that I resolved the issue but got stuck talking to a retard.

They left for the reasons I mentioned. You are behaving like many that come here for help and then attack the people that tried to help. The only thing I am doing is trying to get you to realize that you were not behaving yourself.

Come back after you have cooled down and reread this. Perhaps then you will realize why the only person left talking to you someone is that likes to argue with trolls. Since I don't really want to be banned anymore then they do I will not be posting again on this thread UNLESS it is to congratulate you for apologizing and getting over your tiff. Learning how to do those things is a major step on the road to maturity.

Ethelred

[Cornucopia]

As someone who has "worked in the biz" for ~25 years now, I can very accurately say that there are MANY people working in TV that know a LOT about a very small section of skills, but TRULY don't understand all the technical fine points, nor the big picture. You strike me as one of those.

Example: It could very well be that, regardless of your observations to the contrary, your output to Youtube "just got lucky" and that something truly IS wrong with either your source files, your edit setup or or output setup, or possibly your settings in Quicktime.

Hard to say at this point. But THAT'S THE PROBLEM. You don't go any further. You haven't given us a single truly helpful bit of technical information beyond the small, general amount given in the original post, even after having had it requested of you multiple times.

The whole methodology of troubleshooting is to RULE OUT the known-good links in the chain. As Holmes would put it, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

If you choose to recant, apologize for your rude remarks, and do supply us with the info we requested, we could still go down that path, but I guess I won't hold my breath...

Scott

[OneStarMotel]

Oh no. I'm not one of those. I run an entirely private TV pilot development firm. I write, film, edit, and score all my projects myself. I can assure you that I have a very intimate understanding in the finer points of what I am doing. An example of your complete ineffectiveness: the video you are still trying to convince me is defective in some manner has 537 views on it. No it wasn't a fluke, it worked fine on Vimeo too.

So yeah... I just got woken up by a seal in my front yard. I can see the ocean right now. I'm sitting in my living room. Today for example, I am going to go drink a mocha. Not sure what I am doing tomorrow but it certainly is nice to have achieved a status in which I just simply get paid to be the person you guys are criticizing so much. The cool thing about this conversation: reality. Reality is that I've validated myself artistically to the point where I simply will just never have to work a day job again.

Just a tip: There is nothing you can to say to pop my bubble. I have a level of artistic and personal satisfaction that you can insult me all you want and your words do nothing but remind me of how ridiculously successful I have been. I think it's cute that you've questioned my credibility.

But please, provide me with further entertainment. That's what you trolls are for.

[aedipuss]

take your chocolate milk and "intimate understand" and crawl back under your rock. you're only the second idiot to earn a spot on my permanent ignore list. hope you have a happy time in lala land.

[OneStarMotel]

Criticizing someone's grammar and spelling is always a sign of a weak argument I like being blocked by a guy I want nothing to do with. It's just another example of your complete inability to function in reality.

[Cornucopia]

This is my last post on this thread as it is a TOTAL waste of my further time. One thing to say: "I shot on my iPhone & edited in Premiere" tells me that you DON'T have the best understanding of quality or technical expertise.
While iPhone cams are good from a consumer point of view, they SUCK by professional standards, and Premiere is 4th or 5th on my (and many others') NLE usability list. You're giving yourself away as someone who either is truly trolling, or someone who doesn't understand (or care) about quality.

Oh, and 537 views isn't enough to be proud about - heck, you could have looked up all 537 of them yourself!

Scott

[OneStarMotel]

Really, is your career that far in the tubes that me getting 530 views is something you would need to question the validity of? I'm sorry what I have accomplished sound so unreachable that you feel threatened enough to question my legitimacy.

I made this video as a piece of art. It's being recognized as a piece of art and it's tracking 200 views every 8 hours right now. But if you really want to know about quality I'll be posting the 1080p version shot on a Panasonic HVX 200A in about 24 hours.

Really people, it's not hard to attain some success in the film industry. All you have to do is not be a forum troll like the above users. But be forewarned that the moment you accomplish something that seems a bit unreachable people like the above users - who obviously weren't able to accomplish shit in their careers - will question your accomplishments.

This comes with the territory. There are always "fans" who have something negative to say. The only comfort you have in the end is when someone like the above two inexperienced forum trolls start questioning legitimacy you can go ask the seal that lives in your front yard for some advice.

If you ever need technical assistance coming in these forums should be your last resort. As a matter of fact, no participation in any forum at any time during my whole career has ever benefited me in any way.

As far as Non Linear Editing usability, I've done 3 TV pilots for major cable network using premiere. Don't let these software snobs - or guys who entirely depend on software functionality - tell you that your software has anything to do with the quality of your shots. The Godfather was a single layer film. It could have been edited in Windows movie maker. Unfortunately, you have these guys who think that gear equals quality.

In reality, quality is not something that is considered when execs are looking at pilots. They know when they are watching your work that they can increase the quality simply by funding the project. Please, learn something about the business and how things really work before you go running your mouth.

[poisondeathray]

If you're still interested in the original question, For SD DVD and SD broadcast, Premiere bases it's PAR value calculation on the inner 704 width, not 720 width as per BBC broadcasting guidelines, even for NTSC. As you know, there are 2 different standards, ITU and non-ITU , and different organizations and equipment follow one or the other.

So in Premiere, PAR values are 10:11 for fullscreen and 40:33 for widescreen , instead of 8:9 , 32:27 which would be based on the 720 px width image . Hence it's actually appears "wider" in playback . So for 16:9 content, the PAR is 1.21 instead of 1.18

Content is king. Studios or Potential network clients normally won't care if you screw up a little. There were some aliasing issues that shouldn't be there from a progressive Iphone recording. I suspect you messed up some other settings and interlaced, then deinterlaced it.

Your youtube video is actually 854x470, (not 480) not sure if that was youtube's fault , or if you did something wrong. Hard to say with the lack of information provided. For a youtube destination, normally you would resize and render out as square pixel format - this way there is no letterboxing. For broadcast , DVD or studio destination - it depends on the client and which standard they follow

[OneStarMotel]

Honestly, I've never cared about output quality. It's been a non-issue in my career. Forum trolls aside I get a tremendous amount of compliments on my photography. I do workshops from time to time and one of the things I notice is that there are guys who are hell bent on knowing very technical detail of every aspect of everything they do. They see one of my shots and ask the most absurdly complex color matrix question. My response most for the time is "Well, I point the camera and adjusted the iris."

The guy above me just gave me a very intelligent answer, he seems to know his shit. I am busy enough for 5 people. If I come across some technical issue why should I be overly invested in knowing the details when I can hire a DIT to resolve my technology issues? Not knowing those details doesn't demonstrate my lack of experience. It demonstrates that I have the ability to delegate key tasks to the people who are actually qualified to handle the information I need.

But no matter what none of this really matters because the output put issue was corrected immediately by YouTube. Yes, I could go get some mediainfo program but really what the hell for? Why do I even care? Nitpicking some completely irrelevant technical issue to prove your point just shows me that if you were working on a project, and forced into a real world problem solving issue you'd fail miserably.

But that last sentence is key "it depends on the client and which standard they follow." I'm the client.

I can imagine being 200 miles in the middle of the desert at 120 degrees in august filming timelapse shots of Playa's and having some completely worthless technical issue pop up of which you've kicked the dead horse into a pile of crumbling decayed bones. I can imagine one of these guys starting the above narrative with a director - say me perhaps. I'd just leave you in the middle of the desert. Then you can use your technical skills and problem solving to try to figure out to stay hydrated.

I'm just saying. When I said the issue was resolved and these guys just keep going... really? Am I supposed to be endeared to someone who isn't actually listening? Am I supposed to be impressed with someone who has nothing in life other than status as a well known user on an internet forum? I'm sorry, but I'm still convinced that both of people who have been jumping on me are affliated with mediainfo in some way. Why would you market a free product? Not sure, maybe the guys at freecreditscore.com could explain those details to you.

[Ethlred]

Am I supposed to be endeared to someone who isn't actually listening?

The irony is overwhelming.

I'm sorry, but I'm still convinced that both of people who have been jumping on me are affliated with mediainfo in some way.

I am sorry but you don't have a clue. Its a FREE program.

Why would you market a free product?

You don't, even YOU don't. You give it away and if you are the programmer you may look for donations as is the case with mediainfo. If you don't understand why someone would do that you simply aren't the kind of person that posts free videos on Youtube. Oh you did do that. Hmmm. Perhaps you could it figure it out if you were to stop attacking people when they tried to help.

"Not sure, maybe the guys at freecreditscore.com could explain those details to you. "

Maybe if you were to think about how you posted stuff for free on Youtube then instead of insulting those that tried to help you would not feel the need to justify being rude.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY AFFILIATION WITH MEDIAINFO except that I find it to be a very useful program.

So where should poisondeathray send the bill for helping you understand what was going on? I believe most technicians charge extra for people that have contempt for technicians, especially if the have even more contempt for those that don't charge.

Ethelred

[OneStarMotel]

^busted mediainfo rep

[johns0]

Thread closed.